So, was Deckard a replicant or not?

[sandman]

I was watching Blade Runner last night (the 82 International cut, not the best but nostalgic for me)

This whole is deckard a replicant or not thing dominated my thoughts for the entire running time. Of course, the 82 cut doesn't have the infamous dream sequence.

Its that dream sequence that seems to be the main defence for the "he was a replicant" crew. But, if deckard is a replicant then I want answers to the following:-

1 - Why does he feel pain?

2 - Why don't the others recognise him?

3 - Why don't they try and tell him he's a replicant?

4 - He's not exactly Bourne when it comes to killing replicants is he!

But then, the flip side of this would be

1 - What is the whole dream sequence about if not the fact that he is a replicant?

2 - Why does Zora know he is a blade runner and how does Batty know his name?

3 - Those photos on his piano are a bit obvious aren't they!

Apparently, Scott thinks he was a replicant so I suppose thats that then. Or is it?

[Lorfarius]

Scott says it's so and it's his film. So yes.

[AK Bell]

Scott says it's so and it's his film. So yes.

It was nice of him to end the debate that made the film so good.

[David Kenny]

Scott says it's so and it's his film. So yes.

I don't agree with this. I don't think Scott has any special claims over the "meaning" of the film.

One of the reasons that I prefer the original theatrical release over the Director's Cut is that I love the ambiguity over Deckard's humanity, and by extension everyone elses. That was totally missing from the later releases for me (although they did remove the awful driving sequence at the end). I like to ignore the dream sequence altogether and continue to think that we don't know if Deckard was a replicant or not, and crucially for the philosophical aspects of the film, neither does Deckard.

[The Bag]

I don't agree with this. I don't think Scott has any special claims over the "meaning" of the film.

In the Channel 4 program on in a number of years back they asked them all if Deckard was a replicant, Scott's answer was 'of course, it doesn't make any sense otherwise'.

Watch Dangerous Days with the new Blade Runner release, Scott says yes, Fancher says no, also it's not the answer that's important, it's the question because that's the core theme of the film, what is it to be human. I tend to take that view.

Also see this:

[NecroMorrius]

I don't agree with this. I don't think Scott has any special claims over the "meaning" of the film.

One of the reasons that I prefer the original theatrical release over the Director's Cut is that I love the ambiguity over Deckard's humanity, and by extension everyone elses. That was totally missing from the later releases for me (although they did remove the awful driving sequence at the end). I like to ignore the dream sequence altogether and continue to think that we don't know if Deckard was a replicant or not, and crucially for the philosophical aspects of the film, neither does Deckard.

I don't think the possibility of Deckard being synthetic is made clear enough in the original, and only prominently presents itself retroactively after watching the DC. I much prefer the DC, mainly because it's a tighter movie with a much, much better ending. The unicorn motif is slightly heavy handed, but it still leaves the ending open to interpretation if the viewer wishes, as it could still be a coincidence (albeit an unlikely one...)

One thing I often wonder about the DC, is if Deckard realises his origin upon being presented with the unicorn origami, or perhaps 'activates' in a Battlestar Cylon style, made funnier by the inclusion of Edward James Olmos as the 'activator'. The assumption that Deckard is a replicant makes the DC all the more interesting, as the viewer is distracted by Deckard's and Rachel's struggle to accept her synthetic nature. It seems to form the emotional and philosophical core of the film, but the viewer is then met with the great twist that Deckard may be synthetic himself, as was unknowingly coming to terms with his own synthetic nature. Perhaps without learning to accept and love Rachel as a synthetic (certainly on the impression of Tris, Roy etc) he would probably have been shattered by the knowledge. Alternatively, he could just have easily planned to kill her all along, unbeknownst to the viewer, or maybe even had that task programmed into his being and not known he was going to commit the action until it was too late. Further still, his acceptance of Rachel may even have allowed him to break this programming and retain (or reclaim) his free will, and in essence his humanity.

I fucking love Blade Runner. I would definitely agree that the question is the point, not the answer. I might track down the old Blade Runner game (the point and click one). It was cool.

[DeFiBkIlLeR]

I fucking love Blade Runner.

And to preserve its integrity, laws should be passed at the UN, stating that all attempts at a sequel/remake will be classed as a crime against humanity......

[Plopboy]

But think of the great casting you could have with an all action shite fest

Deckard - Jason Statham (he is in pretty much all action films)

Rachael - Natalie Portman (proabbly might work)

Roy - Hulk Hogan (White hair, muscles)

Leon - Ricky Gervais (so he gets shot and seems to have wormed his way into Hollywood

BTW any sequel would be very bad

[Simmy]

I fucking love Blade Runner.

Me too. My favourite movie.

[ngchol]

I was watching Blade Runner last night (the 82 International cut, not the best but nostalgic for me)

This whole is deckard a replicant or not thing dominated my thoughts for the entire running time. Of course, the 82 cut doesn't have the infamous dream sequence.

Its that dream sequence that seems to be the main defence for the "he was a replicant" crew. But, if deckard is a replicant then I want answers to the following:-

1 - Why does he feel pain?

2 - Why don't the others recognise him?

3 - Why don't they try and tell him he's a replicant?

4 - He's not exactly Bourne when it comes to killing replicants is he!

Apparently, Scott thinks he was a replicant so I suppose thats that then. Or is it?

I think Deckard is a prototype Nexus 7, like Rachel, that is unaware of being a replicant. Deckard's incept date was the same day that you first see him sitting at the sushi bar. That would explain all four of your questions, wouldn't it?

[sandman]

I think Deckard is a prototype Nexus 7, like Rachel, that is unaware of being a replicant. Deckard's incept date was the same day that you first see him sitting at the sushi bar. That would explain all four of your questions, wouldn't it?

I don't think it does...

[ngchol]

I don't think it does...

No? Why not...? The Nexus 7 would have been designed to be weaker than Nexus 6 given the problems that containing rogue Nexus 6 replicants had caused.

[errollw]

Also he'd need to be weaker to ensure that he thinks hes still human when he takes a tumble or whatever.

[sandman]

No? Why not...? The Nexus 7 would have been designed to be weaker than Nexus 6 given the problems that containing rogue Nexus 6 replicants had caused.

Oh, thats interesting. Gives a whole other meaning to the void comp thing between deckard and rachel as well.

[David Kenny]

In the Channel 4 program on in a number of years back they asked them all if Deckard was a replicant, Scott's answer was 'of course, it doesn't make any sense otherwise'.

Watch Dangerous Days with the new Blade Runner release, Scott says yes, Fancher says no, also it's not the answer that's important, it's the question because that's the core theme of the film, what is it to be human. I tend to take that view.

Also see this:

What I mean is, I don't think Scott's opinion is any more significant than anybody else's just because he made the film. He doesn't have ownership of it through virtue of being its nominal author.

[Mr Cochese]

Deckard is an alien.

[David Kenny]

I don't think the possibility of Deckard being synthetic is made clear enough in the original, and only prominently presents itself retroactively after watching the DC. I much prefer the DC, mainly because it's a tighter movie with a much, much better ending. The unicorn motif is slightly heavy handed, but it still leaves the ending open to interpretation if the viewer wishes, as it could still be a coincidence (albeit an unlikely one...)

One thing I often wonder about the DC, is if Deckard realises his origin upon being presented with the unicorn origami, or perhaps 'activates' in a Battlestar Cylon style, made funnier by the inclusion of Edward James Olmos as the 'activator'. The assumption that Deckard is a replicant makes the DC all the more interesting, as the viewer is distracted by Deckard's and Rachel's struggle to accept her synthetic nature. It seems to form the emotional and philosophical core of the film, but the viewer is then met with the great twist that Deckard may be synthetic himself, as was unknowingly coming to terms with his own synthetic nature. Perhaps without learning to accept and love Rachel as a synthetic (certainly on the impression of Tris, Roy etc) he would probably have been shattered by the knowledge. Alternatively, he could just have easily planned to kill her all along, unbeknownst to the viewer, or maybe even had that task programmed into his being and not known he was going to commit the action until it was too late. Further still, his acceptance of Rachel may even have allowed him to break this programming and retain (or reclaim) his free will, and in essence his humanity.

I fucking love Blade Runner. I would definitely agree that the question is the point, not the answer. I might track down the old Blade Runner game (the point and click one). It was cool.

I think Deckard's doubts about his own humanity are made pretty clear in the original, especially in the scene with him looking at his own photographs after Rachel shows him hers. I was 10 or so when Bladerunner was released and I got it then, it can't have been too obscure.

I agree with you of course about the question being the point, that's why it rankles with me that the DC tries to answer it.

[Disgraced Toblerone]

Dick says so.

If I remember correctly.

[redbloodcell]

See, I seem to remember seeing something saying Dick was on the 'human' side of the discussion.

[Wiper]

Oh, thats interesting. Gives a whole other meaning to the void comp thing between deckard and rachel as well.

Voigt-Kampff.

But yeah, he probably is a replicant. But the possibility of him being a replicant, not the actual fact of it, is the important bit, so it doesn't really matter which you think more likely.

[Sardan]

Dick says so.

If I remember correctly.

See, I seem to remember seeing something saying Dick was on the 'human' side of the discussion.

I'd be interested in PKD's view.

(Although I don't know how much it "proves" the man was a complete fruitloop .)

[Kinketsu]

To me, although I love Blade Runner in all it's versions, the story was always more interesting when Deckard was not a replicant, but just a human who realised he had a lot in common with replicants and was reassessing his place in the world. That was the more noir concept to me. The idea that he himself is a replicant who just doesn't realise it for most of the film is pretty dull for me. That basically explains everything away neat and tidy. I liked that Blade Runner was a sci-fi noir in which things were a bit messy. If he's a replicant too it destroys a lot of that. So for that reason I don't like the directors cut (which basically out and out says that he is, although there's a tiny bit of wiggle room), even though in many ways it hangs together better than the original.

On a barely related note, the bluray set is absolutely fantastic and seems to be going for a steal at various times. I picked it up for about 12 quid, that's every version of the film ever released in high definition plus extras.

[Colonel Panic]

There's lots to hint that Deckard WAS a replicant but I look at it in the context of the book where it questions what different between replicants and humans if they both don't know better. They share the same dreams and goals.

I really need to reread the book.

[Gorf King]

I think Deckard's doubts about his own humanity are made pretty clear in the original, especially in the scene with him looking at his own photographs after Rachel shows him hers. I was 10 or so when Bladerunner was released and I got it then, it can't have been too obscure.

Aye, it wasn't obscure at all, nor was there any failure to hint at the possibility. Straight after we saw it during its first week of release my friends and I all debated the issue. A debate which continued, on and off, for years until the cut with the unicorn was released. That kind of made the debate less open and took the fun out of it a bit.

So I kind of agree with the view that it's all a bit too signposted now.

I don't see what Dick's view has to do with the film, which is very different from Electric Sheep anyway. It's a film that stands on its own (or two films, if you want to look at it that way).

[kyletherobot]

On a barely related note, the bluray set is absolutely fantastic and seems to be going for a steal at various times. I picked it up for about 12 quid, that's every version of the film ever released in high definition plus extras.

Any idea where to pick this up from for a similar price?

[James Lyon]

Never mind that. Was it all in Quaid's head or not?

[SM47]

Dick says so.

If I remember correctly.

I dunno, I don't remember the 'Is Deckard a replicant...??' thang even being a part of the book.

For starters, Deckard can experience 'Mercerism', whereas the androids, lacking empathy, cannot.

[Belbo]

I've just ordered the 3CD OST of this from work.

'Rachel's Song' is stunning, as is 'Blush Response'.

EDIT: Deckard was Jesus, by the way.

[Wiper]

I've just ordered the 3CD OST of this from work.

'Rachel's Song' is stunning, as is 'Blush Response'.

Aye, Blush Response is amazing. And, utterly inexplicably, removed from the final cut. The worst thing about it (far worse than the fucker/father switcharoo).

Blade Runner Blues is, of course, the traditional classic, and it's still amaze.

[pulsemyne]

Never mind that. Was it all in Quaid's head or not?

Yes it was. Thats what verhoeven says anyway.